Johnson v. Mazza, 80 Conn. App. 155 (2003)
- Citation
- Johnson v. Mazza, 80 Conn. App. 155 (2003)
- Parent Document
- Johnson v. Mazza, 80 Conn. App. 155 (2003)
- Jurisdiction
- Connecticut (state)
- Effective Date
- 2003-11-11
- Original Source
- https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/7912426/johnson-v-mazza/ ↗
Other Sections in This Document (24)
- Johnson v. Mazza, 80 Conn. App. 155 (2003)
- Johnson v. Mazza, 80 Conn. App. 155 (2003)
- Johnson v. Mazza, 80 Conn. App. 155 (2003)
- Johnson v. Mazza, 80 Conn. App. 155 (2003)
- Johnson v. Mazza, 80 Conn. App. 155 (2003)
- Johnson v. Mazza, 80 Conn. App. 155 (2003)
- Johnson v. Mazza, 80 Conn. App. 155 (2003)
- Johnson v. Mazza, 80 Conn. App. 155 (2003)
- Johnson v. Mazza, 80 Conn. App. 155 (2003)
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
- Section 47a-21
Full Text
896 charsThe following facts and procedural history are relevant to our resolution of the plaintiffs appeal. The plaintiff and the defendant entered into a five year lease for property that the defendant owned in Stamford. As part *157of the lease agreement, the plaintiff paid the defendant $9000 as a security deposit. The plaintiff initiated this action against the defendant by filing a complaint on March 27, 2001. The four count complaint claimed that the defendant had made false representations and violated the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (CUTPA), General Statutes § 42-110a et seq. It further sought reformation of the lease and an injunction. On April 24, 2001, the defendant filed a request to have the plaintiff revise the complaint. The plaintiff subsequently filed a revised complaint on May 11, 2001, claiming fraud and violation of CUTPA, and seeking reformation of the lease.2